Retrieve available VPCs for creating a Search Engine Service cluster.
Get available VPC list for Search Engine Service cluster creation
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "ncloud_ses_get_vpc_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the domain-specific context ('available for SES cluster creation') but no additional behavioral details such as auth requirements, rate limits, or return format. For a simple no-parameter list operation, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get available VPC list for Search Engine Service cluster creation.' Every word contributes meaning, and there is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description is complete. It conveys the essential purpose and context. The lack of return format details is acceptable because no output schema is provided and this is a straightforward list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to convey. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available VPC list') with explicit context ('for Search Engine Service cluster creation'). This distinguishes it from generic VPC listing tools like ncloud_list_vpcs and sibling service-specific variants like ncloud_cdss_get_vpc_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: during Search Engine Service cluster creation. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent would know to use this when needing VPCs for SES cluster creation rather than general VPC listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.